Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ramendra Roychowdhury vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 3 October, 2018
o.a. 791 of 2012 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUUA BENCH, KOLKATA No OA791of 2012 1RY M.A.404of 2012 Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member.
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member.
Sri Ramendra Roy Chowdhury, Son of Late Haridas Roy Choudhury, Aged about 59 years,........
' Wockin asAccountát•Office of the Prin:cipa&fl eraI(A&), In ljs ) W b lkata 700 001,
-
%) Residinga it latala Lane
Hindf
can
IMPO
us
. -
1 'ejttjpll!er% of lndia,
14A
jbidiax ej
ci
P j
mgia
\ 4\Ikata - 700 001
\
\
3 -Seni DeputyntenaI (miriItration), pultt riai \tBgJ,Jiaea ~ tbepjptief VIL ! fn pen era I (A& E), 5, 1jçata-700001.
Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K. Datta, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S.K. Bhattacharyy, Counse
Reserved on : 30.08.2018
Date of Order: 3 .10.2018
2
o.a. 791 of 2012
OR DE R
IFA
Per: Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member The applicant a SeniorAccountant in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), West Bengal, Kolkata by way of this O.A. has sought for the following reliefs:
8.(a) An order quashing and/or setting aside the charge sheet dated 18.12.07 and the entire departmental inquiry/proceedings held there under including the report of the Inquiry Officer.
- -
(b) An order quashi
cmng andoGIRSetting aside 'the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated t dated lith Ma 29Aprij1Oiod v.. 2011 tede of iieAppelIate Authority Ar 71 to g at sequential ( 5rde au reiM7t re( qUiction of
(e) 1rAny oth maséem fit a 1fibunaI
2.
11I was servedr with a Mep1orandun, hargeShee dated 18 A-1)'ontaining a letter datei' 3.i.2)innexre A-2) he denleanddp7ted alI all _.1pations vell and expbssed"his desr tcibIjeard against him i'-. j64 dated 28.1.2008 Issued by the . cA k Qeputyccount General (Adrnn.'& Disciplinary Authority, the applicant was liven Disciplinary AuthorIton8th appperson before the Febr 2OO8 ii 00 a m to submit his defence in person only in respéf5f those articles of charge as were not admitted by him. Sri A. Dasgupta, the Deputy Director (Inspection) as the Inquiry Officer. That at the time of the said personal hearing Sri P. Ganguly was present .and he participated in the said Preceeding although he was listed as a prosecution witness and as such, the subsequent participation of Sri P. Ganguly as a prosecution witness vitiated the entire enquiry.
3. The gravamen of the indictments against the applicant as evident from charge memo are as follows:
"ARTICLE I 3 o.a. 791 of 2012 "While functioning in the Office of the Accountant the General (A&E), West Bengal" "deliberately violated Government of India decision 23(1) and (4) under the sub-head "The following acts and omissions amount to misconduct" below Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (conduct) Rules 1964 by forcibly entering into the room of the Accountant General with Shri Ashit Kumar Chowdhury, Sr. Accountant and four outsiders and caused to humiliate the Accountant General on 23rd October 2007 between 3.15 PM and 3.30 PM."
That amount "to failure in maintaining devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(ii) and an act unbecoming of a Government of Servant under Rule 3 (1)
(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
ARTICLE II "Deliberately violated Rule 7 (i) of-Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Govermpt the said Rule 7 by organising unlawfulme .$• .. , .r •iand äll.ies with the Casual daily rated woikè'.sadoutsiders in the offie4&rjpg offiç hours without any permoh"
The r'by "contraered orn.er fIndia's Deci?ón 3 (7) & (8) cJ lk -
under "the, sub-headiñg'Aéts kv a motiht.to mi conduct"
bIowjjle f .
3 of Cen ..
' raI il 1964w
• ,
ARTICLE Ill
' 1
"Deliberately vIolated;Rule
- ivilServiq _;iff nduct)
.... .
Rules 1964 and •Governmentro.f-jfldJasDeGIsIon •• 34 below thesa Rule 7 .
oy gneraoing the ficials, wit On casual
3daily ràted worke kv
ber, 2007ahd ie re by
cohtravened Gove & (4) under sub-
heading "the.flIov
! 'isCoflduG below
RCile 3 of CéntralGi ices (Conduct)
ARTICLE IV.
- .
"By abénting IirrseIf from his w.or!k' a C i s post without
.
permIsslonduringoff
. t
_141,ice hdursantl:took part In,ur gherao, su bv'er.t.ing &ffice.disciplinejnvjol.atjn k/til mties including vernment of India's i,i uncret.ne sub-neading "t .1iôwing acts and omissions amount to misconduct" be-l-cW.Ri t Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which attracted Government of India's Decisions 3(u) below Rule 7 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964" and thereby "failed to maintain devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
121 The applicant by way of written notes of argument, has pleaded as under:
"The original application is directed against the charge sheet dated 3.1.2008 and the proceeding held thereunder including the Inquiry Report dated 27.10.2009 order of penalty dated 294.2010 and the Appellate Order dated 11.5.2011.
- -.-----------------.------- - -- .---------------------- -
4 o.a. 791 of 2012 That the applicant was served with the Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 18.12.2007 at Annexure-A-1 containing four articles of charges inter-alia alleging that the applicant organized unlawful meetings, demonstration and rallies with the casual daily rated workers and outsiders in the office during office hours without permission and gheraoed the Accountant General with Shri Ashit Kumar Chowdhury, Senior Accountant and four others and caused to humiliate the Accountant General and gheraoed him on 15th November, 2007.
That in the said charge sheet there were six relied upon documents and six prosecution witnesses. Applicant submitted his reply dated 3.1.2008 to the said charge memo denying the charges as well as asking for personal hearing and by misconstruing the said reply the applicant was called for personal hearing by ord r dated-28k2OO8 by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-A-3) which was relie4 to. by thelpljcant (Anneure-A-4) and the M inutescf it appears that one o!ftheeuor witnesses ShP..nguy made a party to the saidpers1 hearing w.hich..is totally a r b an legal and his deposiiioithe inquir ;aisoconsiaered subsequently.• :• IIi p Applicant asl Id i 0 s (Annxu.re-A-t• and also submitted a list of' n ..Gn 11.12.!20( iry wate nd on
-ha da te theItt -Th ? on recO af r his lcorifimation andl.r and 5 wsai to be t 4 -
nonexjstence arid ddit.ionaI do.curnentnoo was held to benot r evant 1 4 • , -s.. -.
without assign inga y
\
5.qhat from th clai:ed .2007
ho is the prosE of the aljgations
3 - -- - w
except organizlngLr andrally was mti iQth.e said ré'ort vide
, .
Annexu reA;8The nt of at pates 33 and
- ., 1• -.. i a. .
34 of the OA alsci,c iention anythingave hdex'ept tIre gherao by
- -r .4" ..I .
the apIicanand ot dTht'tementsf proseEutiojfwitness No 1 only staè'd aiou-t, s Thtryiishoutig vide Annexure-A-8 page 35 andthesf :s of'tA prosectidPi witI)é Nos. 4 and 6 also did not makeallegatI& 5fDutIfii3f slogn1ry the applicant and the prosecution witness about the allegations made save and except gherao vide pages 36 to 39 of the OA and the page 41 of the QA contains the statement of prosecution witness No. 2 and at page no. 43 statements of prosecution witness No. 1 also did not make any specific allegation regarding allegations levelled at Articles 1 and 4 of the charge sheet.
That thereafter the Presenting Officer sent his brief directly to the applicant and the applicant made his representation by way of defence brief dated 2.6.2009 at pages 54 to 63 of OA.
Inquiry Report dated 27.10.2009 was furnished to the applicant vide Annexu re-A-il pages 64 to 81 of OA and representation to the said report was submitted being dated 18.11.2009 vide Annexure-A-12, pages 82 to 85 of OA.
Ell
----.-.-- -. --------.-------- -----.- ----.-_-.-------------------.--- / 5 o.a. 791 of 2012 Thereafter penalty order dated 29.4.2010was passed vide Annexure- A-13, pages 86 to 96 of OA by reducing the rank of the applicant from Senior Accountant for a period of three years.
Thereafter appeal was preferred on 14.6.2012 vide Annexure-A-14, pages 97 to 102 of OA but the same was rejected by Appellate Order dated 11.5.2011 vide Annexure-A-15, pages 103 to 109 of OA without dealing with and/or properly dealing with the points raised in the appeal and other documents and the materials on record as per rules and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal in a close and bias mind.
Hence, it is submitted that the applicant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the OA and moreover, it may kindly be considered that the penalty imposed upon the applicant is too harsh which has an adverse effect on the entire.service career of thepplicant although it was not a case of any corrution
5. The repotdetin thei cally d W d d isputed the I .! ..
contentions raised in the..0.A V They..have averred as-yin 4 .
Vide MemoNo.. dated
18.1007, a diipii 1191 14 of thtI I Civil
Seriices (Classificatioi tUles, 1965,s tiated
agaflt the Applicanti nt on the followir rticles
Charges:
Sfijt:Rojdhury,erstwhiIe 9.fÔuQ. ciFy entered
;namoeror the iccountan,..enei ~ber, 2007
3.15 PM a 330PM with$hri Chowdhury,
e Accountant
ihTct on the prt of Sh.4l1 dhury was on. act
unbecongof atse 1) (iii) of the Central
Civil Services'hd-tA_qJ
'(b0_Zu
t
That Shri Roy Choudhury"_,-_be'_ing the Secretary of the Category Ill Association was actively instrumental in organising meetings, demonstrations and rallies with a group of Casual Daily-rated workers and outsiders within the office premises and within working hours unauthorizedly and unlawfully on several occasions and all his activities amounted to misconduct as per Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with the Govt. of India's decisions 23 (7) & (8) below the said rule. That Shri Roy Choudhury 'gheraoed' (forcibly confined) the Accountant General and other officers with a group of casual daily- rated workers and outsiders on 15th November 2007. This act of commission on the part of Shri Roy Choudhury was a blatant infringement of official decorum and decency and an act unbecoming 1 ..... .... ........ .... - - .............
6 o.a.791of 2012 of a Central Government servant amounting to misconduct as per Govt. of. India's decision 23 (3) & (4) below Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(iv) That Shri Roy Choudhury deserted his section of posting on many occasions without permission and took part in unlawful activities including gherao subverting office discipline in violation of Government of India's decision 23 (I) below Rule 3 of the Central' Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. By the above act Shri Roy Choudhury failed to maintain devotion to duty under Rule 3 (I) (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The Charge Sheet containing all the four aforesaid Articles of Charges supported by a .StaternentofImputationof. Misconduct was served upon Shri Roy Choudhury, on 1.122Q.O7. Shri "Ahidya Dasgupta, Deputy Director (Inspection) of 1 Rriipal Director of Audit (Central), Kolkataiwas appointed as lnquir ,.øficr to'.,nquire into the charges.
Then iqOffi ede$nq i concluded
it on 2M 0.2009 RpAs peth
r lnqyReport
j k .i .
.
(V \ ,
Acopy 0 9 ryR , o oudhury to
I
enable him to make•hisr.epresentatior -suhmision in writing vide letter dated03.11.2009..- received in theoffice on 18 11 2009 iThe contention..made1 by Shri RoyChocidhury wer,coth preheri7y /dtd hiDli nary AuQrityin his speaking order imp6sir g peal!'y a refered toffi'reinbelow. J The ojdeP i?fiposing the the lowe,post of Accou nta?( wastèn;. ssed biThe Discih ohty on 9.04. 2010 PO andse rve e;dlirquent j off 9i1 \ / I \ 'Shri R'oy CKoudhuryefee.d nppeIuner RiTe 23Of the Central J Civil Services Glassifiéatiô'nrControl &peal) Rujs 195, vide his letter ft.,.. •!' r ' .
dated 14.062010"a.ddressed to 'the Principaj,Aounnt General (A&E), West Bengal, No. PAGS: CON:
2011: 18 dated Ii052011, the App.eUatAuthority confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on Shri Roy Choudhury, opining at the same time, in categorical terms that "In fact, the Disciplinary Authority would not have erred had he inflicted on the Government servant a harsher penalty. I do not find any reasonable ground or just cause to set aside the Disciplinary Authority's decision to impose the said penalty or to exonerate him from any of the charges brought against him." In other words, "considering the gravity of the charges brought against him, which have been proved beyond doubt, the penalty imposed on Shri Roy Choudhury is a lenient one and deserved neither to be set aside nor to be reduced.
The applicant has not file a revision petition under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
-- -.. ----'----. -. .-,--' - .-=-
.-.
7 o.a. 791 of 2012 In regard to the allegation about presence of a witness during hearing it has been contended that "the Applicant out of his own volition presented himself for the hearing on 08.02.2008. The Applicant failed to explain as to what induced him to appear personally on 08.02.2008 before the Disciplinary Authority. When an Inquiry is proposed to held under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority is not denuded of the powers to inquire into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, though the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to appoint an Inquiring Authority. In this particular case, another officer was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and thus there cannot be any doubt about the intention of the Disciplinary Authority in granting the personal hearing on 08.02.2008, pursuant to the expressed written request of the Appcant and attended by the Applicant out of his own volition. In those circUffistances, the allegation of the procedure being vitiated by-the esnce oShri PGnguly during the non- procedural ahi adeIiberate attempt to 4 mislead this Hôn'bl'T'ibunaI."
In r'êgard to nonsü.1-0plr'ofäddjti-onal docun1hts the\espondents . FMV 3j'..
have state&.that "the6thmets listed atiSeI Nos. 2 a d?5in the letter of & 'J, the demand of thpApIicat datd#1 u70Osdid not exitatll and is AN nothibut an
- 1) 'f Hon'bI?rjbuaal. The additional docum gr , aIotme nof duties of
- .
'AAOswas found tobOpt.reIe.vanttothe:çase.by tne lnquiryfficerand no
-.
inju,
ttie was dôhe tho.ugh h IâifiQatiofl oPome of thT additional
•
documents calledfo rreiev.ant:totbe c.se. TheadditionaLdocument at
Seri'aVNo 12 n~'.
?ehab?o/dh erandum of fia har vide
item No 2 of Annéxure lIC recéipofwhkh.was acknowJedgedy the : •L ..
Defence Assistant vide!-DaIlv Ordef Shedated 22.12.2008. •ln this '?--- •"
I -."--
connection, ith'as been oiPState of Tamfl Nadu -
Vs- K.V.(P.érumal.reijbfted
i
in 1996 AIR ScW'305'Z: (i1996) 5 SC474, the Hon'ble Apex Courtpthnouncement it was bela interalfthatThe Inquiry Officr / Disciplinary A?thonty is noLbbund t supDly eac-1 and every
-
•.-
document tht. may eakd by the carg&mploee, b,u only relevant documenan(that theH6hb1e ourVh obsed was the duty of the respor'dent tdjioin.t out how each and1ry.de1Lment was relevant to the charges or tothe inq iheldagait him and whether and how their non-supply h rejudicedthW'ase." The Applicant herein has miserably failed to substantiate his contentions in this regard.
8. Further the respondents have contended that "the then Accountant General, was the Statutory Appellate Authority and his direct involvement in the procedure as a Witness would have vitiated the enquiry proceedings and the Group Officer in Charge of Administration was well within his powers to hold the inquiry under Rule 14 of the relevant Rules of 1965".
"The Presenting Officer representing the Prosecution was well within the ambit of. his obligations to hold a view favourable to the Prosecution. The Presenting Officer's written brief in respect of the delinquent absenting himself frequently and regularly for long hours from his desk to organize 8 o.a. 791 of 2012 wful agitational activities during office hours and within the office
-uses, cannot be made a point of contention by the Applicant."
"The acts of the Applicant in spearheading and participating in obstreperous gatherings, rallies through the corridors of the office premises dn as many as ten occasions in the months of October and November 2007, confining the Head of the Office and other Senior Officers with the aid of persons who were not employees of the office on the 151h day of November 2007 and also that the delinquent / Applicant herein had deserted his desk in the office on several occasions to mastermind, organize and participate in activities contrary to the orders in force were borne out by reports and records produced before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer who recorded the evidence of the witnesses, watched their demeanour and after recording of evidence was 'over,.generally examined the charged officer was eminently fit to dr w.inferences frorb..the evidence recorded by
-. 4.% W 'ç . $! .
him. The Applicant extraneous matters that were
- 'f 'q . M
considered 'bythiDi4sciplinary Authority" Fujthk th514as to the rider about regainiifd.TkNority, the existing rule positi(Aisithat 1iuposition of the t.
penalty of reduction to lo/ poi promotin to higher post from
which the ' employee' edi1ced tI condition rtoration is
specified'a nd it ' cribe the
thej DAscinathority ttpe
conditions of restbration iA'.thb ebdéer ,gl ãndidates -.
Th 4 i
No rejoinder habe.nwfil ôkr-deyodispute
madeinthreply
--
Lid. Counsels wëFuiea
8
\
We noted thattAPIe Inquiring offices recor ed th •\) / report
iwin4 his
, l
r
( exracted'to tf PeIev ndgm a ne to the us)
- --
•..&:.-S.___a_r_...w____r_._s.
ARTICLE-I .•.
xxx xxx xxx
During examination in chief. (Reply to Q No-16) and cross examination (Reply to Q No- 10), Shri Ramendra Roy Chaudhury, the CO confessed that he was a member of the delegation and entered AG's chamber on 23.10.2007 along with five others.
xxx xxx xxx
2) CO replied during cross examination (Q No- 8) that he had no knowledge whether outsiders attended the Gate meeting on 23.10.2007 or n rt
9 o.a. 791 of 2012 But Shri Pradip Kumar Roy. (DW-2), President of Co-ordination Committee of Central Government and BSNL Non Regular Workers Union, West Bengal during cross examination (Q No- 5) intimated that about .100 non regular workers of different central Government offices attended the gate meeting on 23.10.2007. These workers were no doubt outsiders. Moreover, Tapash Ghosh, (DW-3) and Secretary of Central Government and BSNL Non Regular Workers Union, West Bengal and one of the most important Defence witness stated that about 200 workers attended the meeting. Defence witnesses Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, the President of the meeting on 23.10.2007 and Tapash Ghsh were themselves outsiders. Shri Ramendra Roy Chaudhury, CO were well aware of all these facts but gave absolute false reply.
Xxx xxx
5)
MR
that e
12).
Sinc& nopermiiowás at all gieto him by. ähybodi to enter inside 1As udrsitWs not pble r him to On analyss of aofivoi e' . enhatthe gedO . fficer was9tating false reply repeatedl inc-ej-ie wasiguilty andhd n'ot the courage to give % :: r I 4 9.it is, therefore, ;rovd/that,. ShriRariiendra Roy CdhJry, CO part!cipated a big ral!y4on'23.10.20017 after ge meeting ande.nted into he AG's chamber forily'alo$ig itha g~ number of outsiders at about d PM withoutpermissiorr-and&.shouted 345 aiot o\er 15 mi1ites and created a(iglyatniosph're into the chambetof A&outantGeneiâl.
\The Chagis therèfoe establishek" -.
/ J
\ .., .'-q - ' A'
ARTICLlI..\ •-... .
zi
XXX I XXX_- . XXX
Care Taker ShriJParasad (PW;2.Qiho was in char2e to see the security of the Office stated vide his daily report (SI. No-3 of Annexure-lIl) and deposition (SPW-2) about leading role of the Charged Official participating in these meetings, demonstration and rallies on the above mentioned dates. Certificate of Sr. Accounts Officer Administration proved that no permission was obtained for these meetings, gathering, rally and demonstration (documentary evidence, SI. No-5 of Annexure-lll) Deposition of Shri B.K. Mukherlee (PW-6) the then Sr. Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) O/o the Pr. Accountant General (Audit) proved his aggressive role on 01.11.2007. Depositions of Shri B.K. Mukherjee (PW-
6) the then Sr. Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) 0/0 the Pr. Accountant General (Audit) and Sourya Chatterjee (PW-5) the then Deputy Director of F 1 10 o.a. 791 of 2012 I 1 Pr. Director of Audit Central, Kolkata office proved his aggressive and leading role on 02.11.2007.
After the events on 02.11.2007 the Office Authority became compelled to lodge the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarter) Lalbazar (documentary evidence-SI. No 6 of Annexure-Ill).
The charge is, therefore, established.
Article - Ill
xxx xxx xxx
The leading role of Shri Ramendra Roy Chaudhury, CO in this gherao by blocking of corridor and the entrance to the AG's Secretariat and the chamber of the AG along with rTois demonstration, derogatory slogan and chasing AG durirg leaving qffie h,asbeen established by the deposition of j.
Shri Sourya Chattejjee, the tnenDeputy ector; .O/oth.e P.D.A.C, Kolkata, (PW-5), Shii P agly Sr. A.O. (PW-1), Shri -Abflha,'O (PW-3) & Shri ..
S a m i r Kmar ChattopadhyayttoAG;.(PW-4).
Shri Sourya T
]
afterjee,heth e k er3uty 1pirector,JD9 the P. D A (C), Kolkata(PW-5) waspfesentthére!asa memIerbS D P C Strh P K Ganguly, Sr AO,d m n (P4i )beirgO tofJAâ nni'tratiôvas at theuerha mber of Ad to help AGfordheDP eihëamb of both?i AI~, Sinha, AAd"(PW-3) and Sarnii(U to AG t(PW-4 being
-. i. F .. r...
adjacent to AGs, chamber.theipdepositions were very acteptable
-
and reliab I lt is provedfro thersttènerits f• tw1efence withsesJ(DW-2 i -
DW-3) producebC9 himself thajiost of the par!tnts in the te meeting werenouiarV ' r ,oie ibourers/outsiders whohad no rlation 1 wiicr ateo-.Ill •• \4 A &ition and 4ththf ;O the Aountant .
-& .• General (A&E)I W BFroth this gathering mcne tim o@ workersssembled • r •'s ;
at the outer'chaniberof AG Shri Ramendra RoveKbwdhurICO helped It these outsiders to make theGherao'ogranm' suclessfuf and also led k these otisider . V .
xxx "Defence witn and DW-4) themselves confessed that there were about/more than one hundred workers/labourers/participants. This mob was so furious that it was not at all possible for AG and other officers to go out. Actually AG and other officers could not go out till police personnel rescued them. Even after rescued by Police personnel, the unruly mob led by Shri Ramendra Roy Chaudhury chased the Accountant General in a riotous manner upt to the south gate till the car carrying him left office gate (deposition of PW-5, Shri Sourjo Chattérjee)."
xxx xxx xxx "During examined himself, a question put in by DA (question no-lO) and the response of CO is quoted verbatim:-
11 o.a. 791 of 2012 DA: - How do you follow the codes of office discipline regarding leaving your work spot?
CO:- According to my habit, I usually leave my work spot with the permission of the Section-in-Charge at that time.
From the above question and answer it is felt that CO thought that separate code of discipline has been set up for him."
xxx xxx xxx "Deposition of Shri J.P. Prasad (PW-2) proved that in many occasions these rally/meeting/demonstration were organized between 1-45 PM and 3-30 PM which were no doubt beyond recess hour. Besides, it is proved from the replies of the CO vide questio.nno 28, 44 and replies of DW-2 vide question no 6 and 14 during cross examinaiiãmthat-44 CO was out of section at least for several höursÔhi.231O'.2O7and 15YtL2007. Moreover, no permission was obtained%from the Officeapthojity fôrL organizing these / meeting/rally/demoñstration as is evident from t dqcuriintary evidence (SI No5, nnre - lll) C ..
Thushisfailureto mainta:in1evoti.on to.duty is est A s 9 1t is-Jiite i dis plinary ' --
procdedinis very limted-
9ln B.C. ChatuivedrwfUnion .8f ndia '& Others, (1995) 6SCC 749 the .1 Hon'blApex Court'6n the cope öfjUdjia1?ëiew hjii under / • "Judicial'r.eview isnot an appeal from"a dedsbn but a .review of the manner;.in i.'- which the decision 'ii •..icmad Poweriof
- , ..•-• . iudiciäi reviiw is meant to ensure that thendividuãNreceives firtretment.and pot to ensure that the conclusin...whi&.the authoitv'reaches is.essariI, correct in the eve of the Court. WRenn ir iF'ieoi wrdrgi of misconduct by a public servant, the Co to determine whether the inquiry was held by a Competent Officer or whether the inquiry was held by a Competent Officer or whether Rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has lurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical Rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the Disciplinary Authority, is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal it its power of ludicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held II 12 o.a. 791 of 2012 the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of natural iustice or in violation of statutory Rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with me conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so asto make it appropriate to the facts of each case."
10. Laying down the scope of judicial review, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, has observed as under:
"Despite the weII-settled -position r '- ..,.
. it is ainfully disturbing to note .•-
that the High Court elI
ppat&Authorit
. '
y in the disciplinary
proceedings, rea reiting even the evider/b ore enquiry officer.
The finding orc• Charge No. I was" - epted by the 'E5isoThlina rAuthority and
was also endorsed by theCendministrative Ti9bunaL lhdisciplinary .$ 4i ...1 ç.
proceedings, the High'CoJrt is.noVard ca'nnotact as a se6ntI Court of first appeal :The High f ,(S p'sunder Afle 226/227 of J the Constitutionfof lndia,shall not"ventu.e into. re-appreciation of the evidehce The High"Court c?an onlechetherc' ."
- -
i: .
r
'ia) the eiquiry is heldbvTaGo'mpeten Authdhty, I'. ' •.K•. .t1• "b) the enuirç,s hela&o ingtothe roédure pres .?ib ed n that .•' '4 behalf, çt? ,
(c) there is violat,dn of e9 0 the procee1gs;# \ (d) theaütitje !1 's- --
reachirg a fair 'k,.
0 conclun'by'some consideration~eneou.
. . .. to the/evidence ,
and meritsofrthe case"
' .#
.- _i-
.
_0•
\.•'./ /
11. In Ranjit Thakurv. U'ñio.n.of India & Othersø1989(1)iSU 109 (SC)(1987) 4 SCC 611, the Hon'ble Supr of proportionality in the following words:
"...
It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."
13 o.a. 791 of 2012 In the instant case we noted1 as enumerated supra, observance of rules of natural justice and procedural law, a conclusion based on evidence and a punishment not disproportionate to the offence alleged.
The applicant has failed to make out a case meriting interference. No extenuating circumstances prevail that would merit quashing of penalty order or the order on appeal.
U .d4 ...
14 In the aforesaid backd.rÔp S misd o costs.
¼
I.
(Dr. Nanditaa rjee)
Admin:istrati nber
drh
/.